Why would they spend to protect the 2nd amendment, when it is well protected by the NRA? The NRA has about 10x the resources and cares about 1/10 as much of the Bill of Rights. I have no real problem with the NRA, but if you give money to it but not to the ACLU, EFF, or some similar organization, then you can't really complain when the First or Fourth amendments are endangered.
ACLU is quite rabid about protecting the Fourth, First, etc. The problem is that they have a tiny fraction of the NRA's budget. The problem is that people like talking but aren't so fond of putting money where their mouth is.
My freedom to swing my fist ends at your nose. And choice is only free if it is informed; otherwise it's just another form of coercion.
I have no problem with you putting anything you want into your body. But you should know the consequences. The problem is that nobody has any idea what the consequences are. If you have lung problems, them my insurance premiums will pay for your treatment (and vice versa) so we're kinda in this together.
We know that lungs are sensitive; we know that substances behave very differently when ingested or inhaled. If you want to mix the vape liquid into a dirty martini and swallow it five times a day, you have a good idea what it will do to you after 10 years. If you heat and inhale it, not so much. Asbestos is a fine example of "this seemed so safe that we never even though of testing inhalation".
So you absolutely own your own body. But if a vendor says "this fireproof-vape is perfectly safe" and doesn't tell you that it contains 30% asbestos, well, the vendor is manipulating your choice.
My current employer avoids the problem by refusing to hire smokers, which is totally legal. Smokers have no employment rights.
Huh. I dislike smoking a lot, but this doesn't seem reasonable.
Though I'd have more sympathy if I hadn't been forced to endure cigarette smoke in public places for many many years. I love being able to stop for dinner or a pint and not have my coat smell like an ashtray for the next week.
You don't seem to understand that "harmful" is not a binary switch. Things can be mostly safe to ingest but terrible to inhale, or vice versa. Something can be perfectly safe to inhale occasionally but not repeatedly. Something can be mostly safe for adults but terrible for kids. Hell, we used materials with lots of lead in them for millennia until we just recently realized that even small amounts of lead cause big problems for kids.
And we know that lungs are sensitive things that are really hard to fix when they break; that lung problems are gradual, hard-to-notice, and poorly studied; and that the vendors of products are terrible at recognizing and admitting flaws which would affect their profit. So some caution seems reasonable in this case.
I'm not saying no regulation is in order, but requiring each individual item to go through a byzantine pre-martket approval that costs about a million dollars a pop is a tremendous overreach. As long as the vendors stick to already safety regulated ingredients (the U.S. ones do), that's most of the ground already covered.
I wonder how accurate the "1 million dollars" (queue Dr Evil) estimate is; I've seen folks produce... hilariously inaccurate estimates when they feel strongly about something.
And "already safety regulated ingredients" is a relative thing; many ingredients are regulated for ingestion safety, for example, but not regulated or tested at all for inhalation. You say there have been "very few incidents"; we used leaded materials for pottery and water containment for literally millennia before we very recently realized how terrible it is for kids to ingest even tiny amounts. Asbestos is an extremely useful material, and we used it "safely" for years, until we realized that inhaling it caused a few minor side effects. And hey, I'm not quite young enough to remember doctors extolling the health benefits of tobacco, but I know folks who do.
I'm not claiming that the new rules are perfect or even a good idea. But I do think that there are some very reasonable concerns. We know that the lungs are very sensitive, that problems can take a long time to appear, and that kids are more sensitive than adults to many toxins. And we know that folks who make money on products are often the last ones to see or admit faults in their profit stream. Some caution seems okay to me.
Seems likely that since Hillary didn't intentionally leak the info, she'll get what everyone else who mishandles classified info without leaking it gets: a slap on the wrist, but no indictment or jail time. Once again, if anyone has a counter-example, please let me know.
But don't worry, all is not lost! We'll have eight more years of Hillary, which means eight more years of Republicans convening never-ending witch hunts and eight more years of Clinton haters waving their pocket Constitutions and Bibles without comprehending either one. I look forward to the Select House Committee on Investigating Hillary's Pantsuits! (Real Women don't wear pantsuits, so it's probably proof of a Commie Muslim Lesbian Fascist Atheist working with her Wall Street Overlords to kill the free market and puppies. You heard it here first!)
Huh, I probably had too many margaritas celebrating Cinco De Rapists, so I apologize if I'm less polite than usual.
Are you claiming that Clinton didn't have her own email server? That it wasn't hacked, thus exposing state secrets? That she didn't give copies of her official emails from her private email server to her lawyer?
Which of those facts is still under dispute, because at least two of them are clear violations of US law, and the other dependent only on an interpretation of criminal negligence.
Having her own email server was not illegal at the time, but sure, if you have to retroactively change the law to convict someone, go for it and feel proud.
We don't know that the email server was hacked, but I know you won't let facts get in the way of your jihad.
Lawyers are specially privileged in US law. If we can be put in jail for giving things to our lawyer, we're much farther down the rabbit hole than I expect.
It's clear that Hillary did stupid, insecure things. It's unclear if any of them were illegal. It's very clear that nobody has ever been put in jail for those sorts of things without intentional disclosure to enemies being involved.
Don't worry. By next year there will be another fake Hillary scandal for you to froth over. And another, and another.
If any other federal government employee tried to hide her official correspondence with a hidden server, that person would now be on year 3 of a prison sentence.
So what you're saying is "Many people have accused her of things. None of them have been proven true, and most have been demonstrated to be false. But I want her to be guilty and believe them anyways, even the demonstrably false ones."
A quick Google search brings up this about uniforms in the white house. So that looks false too. Will you publicly admit to being wrong, or will you continue believing and trusting news sources which lie to your face? Are you honest or gullible?
There are plenty of reasons to dislike Hillary and her policies. Why do people have to make up lies to hate her? Say what you hate about her policies, but not that she is a corrupt traitor who wants to destroy America.
Once again, political enemies are claiming that a Clinton has broken many laws and is headed to jail. Once again, the released evidence doesn't support this, but there have been many many leaks which "prove" that THIS TIME they are guilty. Once again, despite the fact that every other time the accusations have been baseless or quite overblown, many people believe fall for this.
Hey, maybe eleventh time's the charm, eh? Good luck!
Scientifically, an experiment where you predict result A but always get result B means that your theory is completely wrong.
Her lawyer had a copy of the emails on a thumb drive, and I don't seem to recall hearing news that he was cleared to have access to the emails.
If I understand you correctly, the most clearly illegal thing she did was to give a backup copy of stuff to her lawyer. My god, she's worse than Aldrich Ames and Benedict Arnold combined!!!!!!!
This would be why non-idealogues don't take this case seriously. People who intentionally leak the names of current spies to enemy countries are traitors and should be heavily punished. People who give a thumb drive full of 2 year old schedules of no-longer-secret diplomatic trips to their lawyer should probably not be treated the same way.
It continues to amaze me that people keep repeating this easily proven false talking point. The date/time something is stamped 'classified' is irrelevant!
So by your logic, Obama can decide that something Trump tweeted last week is classified, so clearly Trump should be put in jail. Sigh.
There are so many valid reasons to dislike Hillary; why do you have to make shit up to hate her? I rather dislike Paul Ryan, but to convince you that he is bad I don't concoct elaborate treason fantasies. I may point out the elaborate fantasies he puts into his budgets, but I don't claim he is secretly trying to destroy America.
Cruz dropped out because anyone with math skills knew that the race was already over; Trump will have more than half the pledged delegates no matter what Cruz and Kasich do.
But they're not going to do anything to Hillary. Not because she's not guilty or there isn't a case to be made, but because having that on her gives them control over her. She's just a puppet for the wealthy and powerful.
Probably more because if they indicted everyone who ever mishandled classified information they'd put most of the govt and lots of private contractors in jail. They only indict when someone either:
* Tries to give classified data to someone they shouldn't
* Mishandles data so badly that someone else gets it
Clinton did neither. And this is all beside the point that most of the "classified data" was classified after it went through her server, or was classified by the State Dept so the Secretary of State can tell anyone she wants.
I'm always amazed how many people fall for the manufactured Clinton scandals from the right. "Oh, a Clinton is accused of something terrible. The last 10 turned out to be faked or overblown, but sure, I'll panic over this one too, because the right-wing is known for careful application of facts and logic!" Don't fall for these, please, or the next eight years will be terribly stressful for you.
I've not seen any "swipe", but "insert and quickly remove" are common at the ATMs in gas stations and other third-party machines. As you said, all of the bank machines seem to be "insert and hold". Maybe banks want to confiscate cards which they know are bogus, while third-party machines don't want that liability?
I'll be glad for the faster transactions; I'm impatient.
You have a good point. Utah is known to have very few right-wing religious folks, but is full of liberal feminists. So logically, this bill was passed by feminists.
Either that, or you have an irrational hatred of feminists, probably due to deep and perfectly valid feelings of inadequacy, and try to blame them for everything.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Petraeus knowingly gave classified information to his mistress. As far as we can tell, Clinton did not give classified information to any unauthorized persons, knowingly or otherwise. Why do these cases seem similar to you? They seem worlds apart to me.
Can you name someone who was prosecuted for mishandling classified information where they did not try to give the information to someone unauthorized? Anyone? I'll wait for you to Google it.
You must be young. In the 90s, Office was very expensive, but new computers often had "free" copies of Word bundled with or preinstalled on the computer. Microsoft kept this up until they got most of Word Perfect's market share. Then they started bundling Microsoft Works, making Works less compatible with Word, and charging for Word and Office. After they had the entire word processing market they stopped bundling any office-type software with their computers and made you buy it.
Good point; when I think "what is the moral thing to do?" I usually decide on killing innocent men, women and children. After all, Jesus did say "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, kill their entire family unto the tenth generation, especially the babies. Yay, dead babies!"
I expect that that trick will work exactly as well as the death penalty does for preventing crime (not at all). But it's probably a good way to prove to all of the friends and neighbors that your side is pure evil which must be resisted at any cost, so you've got that going for you, which is nice.
Before the 19th century, it was common for armies to lose more men to disease than to enemy weapons. And that was during recorded history. 3200 years ago it was likely even worse.
A gathering of a few hundred people was not too difficult if many of them were constantly busy tending food crops, but feeding a few thousand warriors far away from their home crops and herds is really tough. And once food is scarce, disease quickly comes.
Good point. The modern way of determining "good guy defender" vs "evil attacker who deserved to be shot" is skin color, but that won't work at the RNC. Maybe we can hand out colored cowboy hats at the door to avoid any confusion?
Ohio has a "stand your ground" law, so as long as Trump supporters (or anyone else at the convention) claim that they feel threatened, they can shoot to their hearts content and have a good argument for court.
Note that this is not legal advice and should not be followed by anyone who is not an idiot.
Not everyone. Just the bad guys. (Michael Garabaldi)
B5 quote aside, I agree with you. In the movies, the "bad guys" commit a crime, then the "good guys" get revenge, and then the movie ends. In real life, everyone thinks they are the good guys, everyone tries to get revenge, and pretty soon you get blood feuds lasting generations.
But wow, I really want the Republican presidential candidates to eat their own dogfood and to allow guns for all attendees. Ohio has a "stand your ground" law, so as long as you can claim that you felt threatened you have a good chance of getting away with murder!
Agreed. Even if they don't make it an option, as long as they disclose it (probably in the fine print) then I think it's a non-issue.
When I was younger I wanted thousands of knobs and buttons to fine-tune my internet experience. Nowadays I just want it to work in a largely-reasonable manner. "Lower quality" over wireless is not unreasonable.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would they spend to protect the 2nd amendment, when it is well protected by the NRA? The NRA has about 10x the resources and cares about 1/10 as much of the Bill of Rights. I have no real problem with the NRA, but if you give money to it but not to the ACLU, EFF, or some similar organization, then you can't really complain when the First or Fourth amendments are endangered.
ACLU is quite rabid about protecting the Fourth, First, etc. The problem is that they have a tiny fraction of the NRA's budget. The problem is that people like talking but aren't so fond of putting money where their mouth is.
My freedom to swing my fist ends at your nose. And choice is only free if it is informed; otherwise it's just another form of coercion.
I have no problem with you putting anything you want into your body. But you should know the consequences. The problem is that nobody has any idea what the consequences are. If you have lung problems, them my insurance premiums will pay for your treatment (and vice versa) so we're kinda in this together.
We know that lungs are sensitive; we know that substances behave very differently when ingested or inhaled. If you want to mix the vape liquid into a dirty martini and swallow it five times a day, you have a good idea what it will do to you after 10 years. If you heat and inhale it, not so much. Asbestos is a fine example of "this seemed so safe that we never even though of testing inhalation".
So you absolutely own your own body. But if a vendor says "this fireproof-vape is perfectly safe" and doesn't tell you that it contains 30% asbestos, well, the vendor is manipulating your choice.
My current employer avoids the problem by refusing to hire smokers, which is totally legal. Smokers have no employment rights.
Huh. I dislike smoking a lot, but this doesn't seem reasonable.
Though I'd have more sympathy if I hadn't been forced to endure cigarette smoke in public places for many many years. I love being able to stop for dinner or a pint and not have my coat smell like an ashtray for the next week.
You don't seem to understand that "harmful" is not a binary switch. Things can be mostly safe to ingest but terrible to inhale, or vice versa. Something can be perfectly safe to inhale occasionally but not repeatedly. Something can be mostly safe for adults but terrible for kids. Hell, we used materials with lots of lead in them for millennia until we just recently realized that even small amounts of lead cause big problems for kids.
And we know that lungs are sensitive things that are really hard to fix when they break; that lung problems are gradual, hard-to-notice, and poorly studied; and that the vendors of products are terrible at recognizing and admitting flaws which would affect their profit. So some caution seems reasonable in this case.
I'm not saying no regulation is in order, but requiring each individual item to go through a byzantine pre-martket approval that costs about a million dollars a pop is a tremendous overreach. As long as the vendors stick to already safety regulated ingredients (the U.S. ones do), that's most of the ground already covered.
I wonder how accurate the "1 million dollars" (queue Dr Evil) estimate is; I've seen folks produce... hilariously inaccurate estimates when they feel strongly about something.
And "already safety regulated ingredients" is a relative thing; many ingredients are regulated for ingestion safety, for example, but not regulated or tested at all for inhalation. You say there have been "very few incidents"; we used leaded materials for pottery and water containment for literally millennia before we very recently realized how terrible it is for kids to ingest even tiny amounts. Asbestos is an extremely useful material, and we used it "safely" for years, until we realized that inhaling it caused a few minor side effects. And hey, I'm not quite young enough to remember doctors extolling the health benefits of tobacco, but I know folks who do.
I'm not claiming that the new rules are perfect or even a good idea. But I do think that there are some very reasonable concerns. We know that the lungs are very sensitive, that problems can take a long time to appear, and that kids are more sensitive than adults to many toxins. And we know that folks who make money on products are often the last ones to see or admit faults in their profit stream. Some caution seems okay to me.
Scant evidence that Clinton had malicious intent in handling of emails
Seems likely that since Hillary didn't intentionally leak the info, she'll get what everyone else who mishandles classified info without leaking it gets: a slap on the wrist, but no indictment or jail time. Once again, if anyone has a counter-example, please let me know.
But don't worry, all is not lost! We'll have eight more years of Hillary, which means eight more years of Republicans convening never-ending witch hunts and eight more years of Clinton haters waving their pocket Constitutions and Bibles without comprehending either one. I look forward to the Select House Committee on Investigating Hillary's Pantsuits! (Real Women don't wear pantsuits, so it's probably proof of a Commie Muslim Lesbian Fascist Atheist working with her Wall Street Overlords to kill the free market and puppies. You heard it here first!)
Huh, I probably had too many margaritas celebrating Cinco De Rapists, so I apologize if I'm less polite than usual.
Are you claiming that Clinton didn't have her own email server?
That it wasn't hacked, thus exposing state secrets?
That she didn't give copies of her official emails from her private email server to her lawyer?
Which of those facts is still under dispute, because at least two of them are clear violations of US law, and the other dependent only on an interpretation of criminal negligence.
Having her own email server was not illegal at the time, but sure, if you have to retroactively change the law to convict someone, go for it and feel proud.
We don't know that the email server was hacked, but I know you won't let facts get in the way of your jihad.
Lawyers are specially privileged in US law. If we can be put in jail for giving things to our lawyer, we're much farther down the rabbit hole than I expect.
It's clear that Hillary did stupid, insecure things. It's unclear if any of them were illegal. It's very clear that nobody has ever been put in jail for those sorts of things without intentional disclosure to enemies being involved.
Don't worry. By next year there will be another fake Hillary scandal for you to froth over. And another, and another.
If any other federal government employee tried to hide her official correspondence with a hidden server, that person would now be on year 3 of a prison sentence.
Sure, except for everyone else.. Is is really so hard to Google before saying obviously false shit?
So what you're saying is "Many people have accused her of things. None of them have been proven true, and most have been demonstrated to be false. But I want her to be guilty and believe them anyways, even the demonstrably false ones."
A quick Google search brings up this about uniforms in the white house. So that looks false too. Will you publicly admit to being wrong, or will you continue believing and trusting news sources which lie to your face? Are you honest or gullible?
There are plenty of reasons to dislike Hillary and her policies. Why do people have to make up lies to hate her? Say what you hate about her policies, but not that she is a corrupt traitor who wants to destroy America.
Once again, political enemies are claiming that a Clinton has broken many laws and is headed to jail.
Once again, the released evidence doesn't support this, but there have been many many leaks which "prove" that THIS TIME they are guilty.
Once again, despite the fact that every other time the accusations have been baseless or quite overblown, many people believe fall for this.
Hey, maybe eleventh time's the charm, eh? Good luck!
Scientifically, an experiment where you predict result A but always get result B means that your theory is completely wrong.
Her lawyer had a copy of the emails on a thumb drive, and I don't seem to recall hearing news that he was cleared to have access to the emails.
If I understand you correctly, the most clearly illegal thing she did was to give a backup copy of stuff to her lawyer. My god, she's worse than Aldrich Ames and Benedict Arnold combined!!!!!!!
This would be why non-idealogues don't take this case seriously. People who intentionally leak the names of current spies to enemy countries are traitors and should be heavily punished. People who give a thumb drive full of 2 year old schedules of no-longer-secret diplomatic trips to their lawyer should probably not be treated the same way.
It continues to amaze me that people keep repeating this easily proven false talking point. The date/time something is stamped 'classified' is irrelevant!
So by your logic, Obama can decide that something Trump tweeted last week is classified, so clearly Trump should be put in jail. Sigh.
There are so many valid reasons to dislike Hillary; why do you have to make shit up to hate her? I rather dislike Paul Ryan, but to convince you that he is bad I don't concoct elaborate treason fantasies. I may point out the elaborate fantasies he puts into his budgets, but I don't claim he is secretly trying to destroy America.
Cruz dropping out handed the race over.
Cruz dropped out because anyone with math skills knew that the race was already over; Trump will have more than half the pledged delegates no matter what Cruz and Kasich do.
But they're not going to do anything to Hillary. Not because she's not guilty or there isn't a case to be made, but because having that on her gives them control over her. She's just a puppet for the wealthy and powerful.
Probably more because if they indicted everyone who ever mishandled classified information they'd put most of the govt and lots of private contractors in jail. They only indict when someone either:
* Tries to give classified data to someone they shouldn't
* Mishandles data so badly that someone else gets it
Clinton did neither. And this is all beside the point that most of the "classified data" was classified after it went through her server, or was classified by the State Dept so the Secretary of State can tell anyone she wants.
I'm always amazed how many people fall for the manufactured Clinton scandals from the right. "Oh, a Clinton is accused of something terrible. The last 10 turned out to be faked or overblown, but sure, I'll panic over this one too, because the right-wing is known for careful application of facts and logic!" Don't fall for these, please, or the next eight years will be terribly stressful for you.
I've not seen any "swipe", but "insert and quickly remove" are common at the ATMs in gas stations and other third-party machines. As you said, all of the bank machines seem to be "insert and hold". Maybe banks want to confiscate cards which they know are bogus, while third-party machines don't want that liability?
I'll be glad for the faster transactions; I'm impatient.
You have a good point. Utah is known to have very few right-wing religious folks, but is full of liberal feminists. So logically, this bill was passed by feminists.
Either that, or you have an irrational hatred of feminists, probably due to deep and perfectly valid feelings of inadequacy, and try to blame them for everything.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Petraeus knowingly gave classified information to his mistress. As far as we can tell, Clinton did not give classified information to any unauthorized persons, knowingly or otherwise. Why do these cases seem similar to you? They seem worlds apart to me.
Can you name someone who was prosecuted for mishandling classified information where they did not try to give the information to someone unauthorized? Anyone? I'll wait for you to Google it.
You must be young. In the 90s, Office was very expensive, but new computers often had "free" copies of Word bundled with or preinstalled on the computer. Microsoft kept this up until they got most of Word Perfect's market share. Then they started bundling Microsoft Works, making Works less compatible with Word, and charging for Word and Office. After they had the entire word processing market they stopped bundling any office-type software with their computers and made you buy it.
Good point; when I think "what is the moral thing to do?" I usually decide on killing innocent men, women and children. After all, Jesus did say "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, kill their entire family unto the tenth generation, especially the babies. Yay, dead babies!"
I expect that that trick will work exactly as well as the death penalty does for preventing crime (not at all). But it's probably a good way to prove to all of the friends and neighbors that your side is pure evil which must be resisted at any cost, so you've got that going for you, which is nice.
Before the 19th century, it was common for armies to lose more men to disease than to enemy weapons. And that was during recorded history. 3200 years ago it was likely even worse.
A gathering of a few hundred people was not too difficult if many of them were constantly busy tending food crops, but feeding a few thousand warriors far away from their home crops and herds is really tough. And once food is scarce, disease quickly comes.
Good point. The modern way of determining "good guy defender" vs "evil attacker who deserved to be shot" is skin color, but that won't work at the RNC. Maybe we can hand out colored cowboy hats at the door to avoid any confusion?
Finally, a petition I would sign in a heartbeat!
Ohio has a "stand your ground" law, so as long as Trump supporters (or anyone else at the convention) claim that they feel threatened, they can shoot to their hearts content and have a good argument for court.
Note that this is not legal advice and should not be followed by anyone who is not an idiot.
Not everyone. Just the bad guys. (Michael Garabaldi)
B5 quote aside, I agree with you. In the movies, the "bad guys" commit a crime, then the "good guys" get revenge, and then the movie ends. In real life, everyone thinks they are the good guys, everyone tries to get revenge, and pretty soon you get blood feuds lasting generations.
But wow, I really want the Republican presidential candidates to eat their own dogfood and to allow guns for all attendees. Ohio has a "stand your ground" law, so as long as you can claim that you felt threatened you have a good chance of getting away with murder!
Agreed. Even if they don't make it an option, as long as they disclose it (probably in the fine print) then I think it's a non-issue.
When I was younger I wanted thousands of knobs and buttons to fine-tune my internet experience. Nowadays I just want it to work in a largely-reasonable manner. "Lower quality" over wireless is not unreasonable.